automatic sandstone acidizing

7/25/2019 automatic sandstone acidizing

1/16

O R I G I N A L P A P E R - P R O D U C T I O N E N G I N E E R I N G

Automating sandstone acidizing using a rule-based system

AbdAllah S. Ebrahim

Ali A. Garrouch

Haitham M. S. Lababidi

Received: 9 October 2013 / Accepted: 11 January 2014 / Published online: 4 February 2014

The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract An expert system for automating sandstone

acidizing has been developed in this study. The systemconsists of six stages, which were built following an aci-

dizing logic structure that is presented in the form of

decision trees. The six stages consist of formation oil dis-

placement, formation water displacement, acetic acid, HCl

pre-flush, main acid, and over-flush stage. The acid blends

recommended by the system are damage-type specific, and

account for the compatibility between the injected acid and

the in situ crude in order to avoid formation of asphaltene

sludge, or emulsions. The acidizing expert system has been

implemented as an online web-based application. Appli-

cability of this expert system to acidizing design has been

illustrated using three documented actual field cases

spanning the Niger Delta region, Algyo Oil field in Hun-

gary, and the Dulang oil field in Malaysia. For Niger Delta

field and the Algyo field cases the expert system produced

an optimal main acid job design with recommended pre-

and post-flushes that are in perfect agreement with suc-

cessful field treatment. For the Dulang oil field, in actual

practice, an organic clay acid was injected for removing

problems of fines migration in a reservoir that has a high

calcite content, with a moderate amount of feldspar and

chlorite clay. The acidizing expert system recommended a

chelant-based acid, which is a recent innovation that is

considered a more cost-effective acid solution for

dissolving fines in presence of calcite and other sensitive

clay minerals.

Keywords Acidizing Sandstone Expert system

Introduction

The selection of an appropriate acid type, concentration

and volume needed to be injected along with the required

additives and their concentrations for various temperature

and mineralogical environments can be a very perplexing

task. Part of this problem stems from the complex and

heterogeneous nature of most sandstone rocks. In addition,

the interactions between the many different mineral species

and the injected acid depend not only on their chemical

compositions but also on temperature, and on surface

morphology (Boyer1983).

Sandstone formations are challenging to acidize because

of the presence of alumino-silicates such as clays, zeolites,

and feldspars, which may lead to unwanted precipitates in

contact with mud acids as a result of secondary and tertiary

reaction products. For instance, smectite and mixed layer

clays are unstable in HCl at temperatures of approximately

150 F. Chlorite is unstable in presence of HCl at tem-

peratures above 125 F. When contacted with HCl, the clay

structure may disintegrate, releasing iron which may pre-

cipitate in presence of HCl acid (Rae and Di Lullo 2003).

Therefore, formations with high levels of chlorite respond

best to acid formulations based on acetic acid rather than

hydrochloric acid, since the former limits iron liberation

and thereby reduces the risk of precipitates from iron

reaction products (Nasr-El-Din and Al-Humaidan 2001;

Hashem et al. 1999). In formations with high levels of

feldspar ([20 %), a common practice is to limit the

A. S. Ebrahim A. A. Garrouch (&)

Petroleum Engineering Department, Kuwait University,

P.O. Box 5969, 13060 Safat, Kuwait

e-mail: [email protected]

H. M. S. Lababidi

Chemical Engineering Department, Kuwait University,

P.O. Box 5969, 13060 Safat, Kuwait

1 3

J Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2014) 4:381396

DOI 10.1007/s13202-014-0104-3


2/16

strength of HF acid stages to reduce the formation of

complex fluorosilicate precipitates and other species that

would result from excessive dissolution of the mineral by

stronger acid (Coulter and Jennings1997).

Illite clays are troublesome when using HF acid due to

the presence of potassium in this clay structure. When

dissolved, the potassium is readily available to react with

the HF-alumino-silicate reaction products, forming theinsoluble potassium hexa-fluosilicate. Illite is unstable in

HCl at temperatures above approximately 150 F. Kao-

linite clay is considered the most detrimental from a

migration standpoint (Coulter and Jennings 1997). It

becomes unstable in HCl only at higher temperatures

(greater than *200 F).

Zeolites are secondary minerals in the form of hydrated

silicates of aluminum, calcium, sodium, and potassium.

They are occasionally found in sedimentary rocks, with the

most common form being analcite (analcime). The signif-

icance of zeolites is that they either decompose and/or

gelatinize in hydrochloric acid at temperatures aboveapproximately 75 F (Coulter and Jennings1997).

The reasons for the disparity between the successful

sandstone matrix acidizing jobs and those treatments that

were unsuccessful may be grouped as follows:

a. Poor candidate selection

b. Lack of mineralogical information

c. Wrong acid design (strength, volume, etc.)

d. Use of inappropriate acid additives

e. Insufficient iron control

f. Use of contaminated/dirty fluids or neglecting to pickle

tubing stringg. Improper placement of acid (e.g., lack of diversion,

plugged perforations)

h. Long shut-in time without recovering injected fluids.

A long residence time of the injected fluids in the res-

ervoir causes formation of insoluble precipitates and for-

mation of very stable emulsions in the near well-bore

region (Barker et al. 2007). Acid formulation requires

careful mineralogical analysis of core samples. For

instance, a sandstone formation containing authigenic iron

chlorite clay within its pore spaces, even with low volume

fraction, may not respond to treatment with HF in any

concentration, and can be detrimental in response to HCl

treatment as well (Nwoke et al. 2004). On the other hand,

traditional guidelines, based on bulk mineralogy, might

suggest treatment with mild or moderate strength HF for

low total chlorite content regardless of the clay distribution

in the pore space (Coulter and Jennings 1997).

A large number of interacting variables come into play

for the selection of appropriate acid design job. For some

conditions, the design solution may not be a unique solu-

tion. However, there are many inappropriate design

solutions that could be formulated, if individuals super-

vising these jobs do not pay careful attention to the intri-

cate interactions between the rock, the injected acid, and

the in situ fluids.

In the last 20 years, few publications have emerged

related to expert system development for designing sand-

stone acidizing (Blackburn et al. 1990; Chiu et al. 1992;

Domelon et al. 1992; Nitters et al. 2000; Xiong and Hol-ditch 1994). Both Domelon et al. (1992) and Xiong and

Holditch (1994) introduced robust rule-based systems for

acid fluid selection that are damage-type specific, and

depend primarily on the formation mineralogy and the

produced fluid composition. Bartko et al. (1996) developed

an integrated matrix stimulation model that aids in diag-

nosing the formation damage type, optimizes injected acid

type, and provides a pressure-skin response of the acid

treatment. In all of these systems, however, the acid fluid

selection follows guidelines that do not reflect the recent

technological advances in acidizing blends formulations,

such as phosphonic acid blends and acid chelating blends.Instead, the acid selection is primarily based on mud acids,

organic acids, and clay acids. In addition, these rule-based

systems ignored the clay distribution in the rock, and were

rather forgiving with respect to the crudeacid interaction.

This research aims at the development and implemen-

tation of a Web-based acidizing expert system that

accounts for (i) the mineral distribution in the rock, (ii)

compatibility of the injected acid with the in situ crude, (iii)

reservoir temperature, (iv) compatibility of the injected

acid with the reservoir mineralogical composition, and (vi)

for the damage type. The base-fluid selection in our system

will depend primarily on recent novel acid blends intro-

duced in the industry that proved useful in preventing a

number of secondary and tertiary reaction products asso-

ciated with the use of regular mud acids. The remainder of

the manuscript reports the development of the reasoning

logic of the sandstone acidizing expert system, as well as

the implementation of the expert system.

Acidizing decision trees

The knowledge and reasoning logic incorporated in thesandstone acidizing expert system take into account input

data such as rock mineralogy, clay type and distribution,

reservoir temperature, and formation fluidsacid compati-

bility. The treatment design is constructed following a

sandstone acidizing structure that includes the following

stages:

Stage 1 Formation oil displacement

Stage 2 Formation water displacement

Stage 3 Acetic acid pre-flush

382 J Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2014) 4:381396

1 3


3/16

Stage 4 HCl pre-flush

Stage 5 Main acid injection

Stage 6 Over-flush

In this structure, the pre-flush is no longer a single-stage,

and may be stretched to multiple stages. In fact, individual

Stages 14, or a combination of these may make-up the

needed pre-flush stage, depending on the conditions of therock after drilling, its mineralogy, presence of organic

deposits, the formation water salinity, and the calcite

content. The acidizing treatment design undertaken by

Stages 16 is based on knowledge and experience extracted

from human experts and arranged in hierarchical (tree)

forms, which may be termed as decision trees which are

used in the current work to represent the acquired knowl-

edge and reasoning logic. A decision tree is a tree-like

decision support tool that uses a graph to convey decisions

and their possible consequences (Adamo 1980; Yuan and

Shaw 1995). It contains mainly three types of nodes:

decision nodes associated with conditions and statementsto support decision making, chance nodes to represent

derived decisions and events that are likely to occur, and

end nodes corresponding to situations and end goals to be

obtained. Decision trees are essential to understand and

follow up the logic of the system. They may be considered

as references and means of communication between the

expert and the developer. Moreover, they facilitate main-

taining, checking, modifying and extending the knowledge

and logic of the system.

Stage 1 addresses the cleaning of whole mud losses that

take place during the drilling phase. It is also concerned

with the cleaning of organic deposits in the formation. Thedecision tree for Stage 1 is given in Fig. 1. This stage pre-

pares the surfaces for the main treatment fluids. Hydrocar-

bon solvents are used to clean oil films and paraffin deposits

so that the main acid systems can contact the mineral sur-

faces. In Stage 2, brine containing ammonium chloride is

used to help remove and dilute acid-incompatible species,

such as potassium or calcium (Fig. 2). This process helps

avoid precipitation of some of the most detrimental pre-

cipitates produced in sandstone acidizing such as sodium

and potassium fluorosilicates. Ammonium chloride is also

used to condition the clays that might come in contact with

injected acids. The lower the formation water salinity is, thehigher the concentration of ammonium chloride is needed to

suppress the electrical double layer of clays. A linear rela-

tionship between ammonium chloride concentration and

water salinity has been adopted in this study. This is

inspired from estimates of the critical salt concentration

needed for clay stability (Schechter 1992). The boundary

points of this linear relationship consist of 8 % ammonium

chloride solution for 0.1 % water salinity, and 3 %

ammonium chloride solution for 5 % water salinity, or

greater. Stage 3 is reserved for formations that bear iron-

rich minerals, or iron-rich clays like chlorite (Fig.3).

Injection of HCl acid in these rocks is likely to precipitate

iron scales when iron-rich minerals are present (Coulter and

Jennings1997). In order to alleviate these problems, HCl is

substituted with acetic acid when the volume fraction of

these authigenic species is [6 % (Fig. 3). Acetic acid

lessens the risk of precipitates from iron reaction products.Compatibility of the main acid with formation fluids is

another consideration for pre-flushes. A number of crudes

may sludge in contact with certain acidic mixtures (Houchin

et al. 1990). These situations may require buffering acetic

acid as a pre-flush. In the absence of sludge and emulsion

problems, HCl pre-flush (Stage 4) in sandstone acidizing

becomes extremely important. The function of an HCl pre-

flush is to remove the bacteria that may exist with injection

wells, calcareous material growth in the pore system, or to

remove CaCO3 inorganic scale deposits, and the calcite

cementing material that may precipitate calcium fluoride

deposits in contact with HF acid of the main stage. HCl pre-flush also reduces the potential precipitation of insoluble or

slightly soluble reaction products like calcium fluoride, and

sodium and potassium hexafluorosilicates. The decision tree

for HCl pre-flush is shown in Fig.4.

Selection of the main acid treatment as a function of

rock mineralogy for removing fines migration problems

is represented in the decision tree shown in Fig.5.

The selection process follows the subsequent general

guidelines:

1. Conventional mud acids are used only in very special

circumstances and in general in low concentrations inorder to avoid the precipitation of many damaging

reactants, maintain formation integrity, and dissolve

any fines. Indeed, mud acid is restricted for treating

clay-clean formations at relatively low temperatures

with insignificant amounts of calcite, Feldspar, or

zeolite.

2. Organic acids are recommended for clean rocks that

bear a minimum amount of clays, but at relatively high

temperatures. Shaly rocks that are free of either calcite

or zeolites are treated with a clay acid.

3. Shaly rocks that bear significant chlorite presence are

treated with a clay acid, a reducing agent likeerythorbic acid, and a sequestering agent like EDTA.

4. Shaly rocks that bear significant chlorite, feldspar or

zeolites but with low calcite content are treated with a

phosphonic acid blend.

5. Formations with low clay content, at high temperatures

and with significant calcite content are treated with

acid chelating blends.

6. Fracture option is reserved for reservoirs that bear

highly non-paraffinic crudes that may develop rigid

J Petrol Explor Prod Technol (2014) 4:381396 383

1 3


4/16

emulsions or asphaltene sludge upon contact with HCl

(Houchin et al.1990).

The purpose of the over-flush (Stage 6) is to eliminate

damage in the near-wellbore area caused by the precipi-

tation potential of the spent acid of the main fluid stage

(Fig.6). This is accomplished by displacing the main fluid

stage more than 34 ft away from the wellbore, and by

diluting the portion of the main fluid stage that is not dis-

placed. Over-flush fluids are chosen carefully to be aqueous

based, and have dilution potential for the spent acid. The

fluids used in the over-flush stage must be miscible with theprevious stages.

The final design is reduced to include only necessary

steps, though. A great emphasis is placed on Stages 4 and

5. In other words, Stage 1 is skipped if none of the diamond

conditions of decision tree shown in Fig. 1 are satisfied.

Stage 3 is skipped, if the rock has no zeolite material, iron

minerals, illite, chlorite, or mixed layer clays. Stage 4 is

skipped if the conditions of the OR-Test S4-1, shown in

Fig.7a, are not satisfied. Decision trees that match the

damage types and initial formation conditions for the six

treatment stages have been constructed in this study. These

decision trees make the logical foundation for the expert

system decision-making process (Figs.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6),

covering the following damage types:

1. Particle damage from drilling and completion.

2. Fines migration.

3. Calcium carbonate scale

4. Hydroxide scale (Mg(OH)2, Ca(OH)2)5. Iron scales (FeS, Fe2O3, FeCO3)

6. Polymer residue from drilling or secondary recovery

7. Bacterial infestation (injection wells)

In an effort to extend the life of the acid treatment and

improve the outcome of the acidizing job, alternative acid

blends to the conventional HCl-HF acid systems were set

as part of the remedies employed in the decision trees

(Fig.5). In one of the improved chemistry systems, HCl is

replaced with a phosphonic acid complex which has five

available hydrogen ions that dissociate at different stoi-

chiometric conditions. For this reason, the phosphonic acid

complex is referred to as a five-hydrogen (HV) complex(Nwoke et al.2004; Uchendu and Nwoke2004; Rae and Di

Lullo 2007). The HV acid reacts with ammonium bifluo-

ride (NH4HF2) or with ammonium fluoride to produce HF

acid. In order to produce a 1 % HF acid solution, 20 gal of

HV acid per 1,000 gal of water are required to react with

approximately 123 lbm of NH4HF2 (Uchendu et al. 2006).

This self-generating reaction of HF acid reduces the rate at

which the acid system reacts, and therefore, allows an

increased depth of penetration of live HF acid into the

Stage 1: Formation Damage Displacement

Are there whole

mud losses?

(water-based mud)

Start

Was oil based

mud used?

Are there any

organic deposits?

Inject a mixture of diesel and

toluene at 75:25 ratios.

Soak overnight and flow back

GOTO

Inject an organic solvent

xylene or toluene/crystal

modifiers.

Inject a mutualsolvent.

GOTO

Are there any

organic deposits?

No action needed

No

No

No

Yes

YesYes

Yes

No

Fig. 1 Decision tree for

formation oil displacement

Stage 1

Stage 2: Formation Water Displacement

Inject water with ammonium

chloride (NH4Cl) at

concentrations between 3%

and 8% depending on the

formation water salinity

Fig. 2 Decision tree for water displacementStage 2


1 3


5/16

Stage 3: Acetic Acid Pre-Flush

Are there iron

compounds in the

formation, sum > 6%?

- Pyrite, or- Siderite, or

- Hemetite, or

- Magnetite, or- Antecerite

Start

Inject acetic acid according tocalcite content:

CaCO3Acetic acid

volume (gal/ft)

1 5% 25

5 10% 50

10 15% 75

15 20% 100

No action needed

No Yes

No

Are there clays in theformation, sum > 6%?

- Chlorite, or

- Mixed layer, or- Illite

Are there zeolites in theformation, sum > 2%?

- Analcime, or- Natrolite

Yes

Yes

No

Fig. 3 Decision tree for acetic

acid pre-flushStage 3

Stage 4: HCl Pre-Flush

Damage Types: 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7

OR Test S4-1

Start

Acetic acid 10% +

Phosphonic acid-based

system + EDTA

No

Yes

No action needed

High sludge/

High Emulsionpotential?

OR Test S4-2

No

Examine

fracturing option

Yes

Zeolites > 2% Zeolites > 2%YesYes

Temperature

200F

HCl 10% + Erythorbic

acid 10% + Acidic

chelant based fluid

Feldspar exists?


acid + Fluoboric acid +

EDTA


acid + EDTA

Acetic acid 10% +

Erythorbic acid +

Fluoboric acid + EDTA

HCl 3% + Erythorbic

acid + Fluoboric acid +

EDTA

Yes

NoYes

No

No

YesNo

Feldspar exists?

No

No

Yes No

Temperature

200F

HCl 3% + Acetic

acid 10% + Acidic

chelant based fluid

Yes

Fig. 4 Decision tree for HCl

acid pre-flushStage 4


1 3


6/16


7/16

Sandstone

naturally fractured

with partial calcite

filling

OR

OR Test S4-1

Bacteria damage or

polymer residueCalcite content

> 6%

Authigenic

chlorite

OR

Crystal growthchlorite

Crystal growthFeldspar

Authigenic ironrich minerals

Detritalchlorite > 4%

DetritalFeldspa > 4%

Detrital ironrich minirals

> 4%

AuthigenicFeldspar

OR Test S4-2

Existence of

(a)

(b)

OR

Authigenic

Feldspar

OR Test S5-1

Existence of

Crystal growth

Feldspar

Crystal growth

Illite

Detrital

Feldspa > 10%

Authigenic

Illite

(c)

Fig. 7 a Logical OR Test S4-

1 used in Stage 4 b Logical

OR Test S4-2 used in Stages

4, 5 and 6 c Logical OR Test

S5-1 used in Stages 5 and 6


1 3


8/16

formation. This slow reaction reduces the risk of formation

deconsolidation in the near-wellbore area, unlike the con-

ventional HF treatment which may deconsolidate the for-

mation in the near-wellbore region.

In addition, the reaction of the HV:HF system with clays

forms a thin aluminum silicate phosphonate coating on the

clay. This coating, in return, prevents further spending of

the HF acid and reduces the reaction rate on high surfacearea clays. As a consequence, the volume of silica material

that can be dissolved is increased, causing further

improvement to the near-wellbore permeability (Obadare

et al. 2006). The production of ammonium phosphonate

salt, while HF is evolved from the HV acid, eliminates the

generation of insoluble precipitates as the pH of the spent

acid system rises. This is a common problem with con-

ventional HF acid systems. Furthermore, the rock substrate

is conditioned to be water wet with this HV:HF chemistry.

Water-wet condition improves the acid contact with the

targeted alumino-silicate material. Precipitation of fluo-

rosilicates, hexafluorosilicates, alumino-fluorosilicates,iron compounds and calcium fluoride, commonly generated

during acidizing with conventional HF are prevented as a

consequence of the strong chelating property of the HV:HF

acid system (Nwoke et al., 2004). These numerous prop-

erties of the HV:HF acid system are, indeed, the reason for

the improved success rate of acid jobs in several case

histories.

To satisfy the need for a longer-lasting stimulation effect

without the generation of unwanted second-reaction and

third-reaction precipitates in sensitive sandstone forma-

tions, the expert system deploys another blend referred to

as the acidic chelant-based blends (Urraca and Ferenc

2009; Rae and Di Lullo 2007; Nasr-El-Din et al. 2002,

2007). The use of these acidic chelant-based blends is

restricted to high temperatures formations, with relatively

high carbonate content and low clay content. The advan-

tages of these acid blends consist of their ability to:

Dissolve both calcium and alumino-silicates.

Prevent the possible precipitation of reaction by-

products by sequestering many of the metal ions

present in the aqueous solution: Ca2?, Fe2?, Al3? ions.

Treat formations with high calcite content.

Treat formations with high iron content. Treat formations with zeolite bearing minerals.

Expert system development

System implementation

Implementation of the acidizing expert system has been

achieved in five phases as shown in Fig. 8. The first phase

is knowledge acquisition in which knowledge is elicited

from the expert in the field. In this phase, the necessary

knowledge is built up progressively through a series of

consultation sessions between the domain expert and the

artificial intelligence specialist, the knowledge engineer.

Knowledge acquired during these sessions is recorded,refined and structured so that it could be used in the rea-

soning process.

The main task of the second phase is to arrange the

acquired knowledge in decision trees, which are considered

as the main communication tools between the domain

expert and the system developer. Decision trees prepared

for Stages 16 are shown in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, respec-

tively. Main development and coding of the Acidizing

Expert System are performed in phase three.

The software used in the implementation of the system

is Exsys Corvid, which is supported and licensed by Ex-

sys Inc. Corvid is an expert system development tool that

can be used to automate decision-making processes (Exsys

Inc. 2010). Expert system development in Corvid is

achieved using object structures, logic blocks, action

blocks and interactive Java-based tools for Web delivery.

The first step in phase three is to formulate the system by

identifying and defining the variables that will be used in the

reasoning process. Variables are either input variables that

are acquired through interaction with the user or decision

variables that are inferred and concluded by the reasoning

process. The next step in phase three is to represent the

knowledge, arranged as decision trees, in IFTHEN rules

format. The expert system is then constructed using the

development mode of Exsys Corvid. This includes defining

the variables, followed by building the questions and

defining the interaction with the user. The knowledge base

is then constructed by coding the IFTHEN rules taking into

account the inference mechanism to be used in deriving the

conclusions. During the development phase, interaction

with the user is performed using Java Applet.

The developed expert system is tested and validated in

stage four. Ideally, testing and validation are performed by

PhaseOne

Knowledge Acquisition

PhaseTwo

Decision Trees

PhaseThree

Expert System Development

PhaseFour

Validation

PhaseFive

System Delivery

Fig. 8 Expert system implementation phases


1 3


9/16

exhaustive combinations of the values of input variables.

Using the decision trees, the reasoning process is followed

for each combination and the conclusions of the system are

validated against the end nodes of the tree. Actual valida-

tion of the developed system is then performed by running

a set of case studies that reflect practical applications.

System implementation is finally concluded in stage five

by delivering it to the end user. In Exsys Corvid, the

developed expert system may be delivered using Java

Applet or Servlet Runtime. The former is for standalone

applications, while the latter is for Web-based applications.

Reasoning structure

The structure of the acidizing expert system is shown in

Fig.9. Each stage in the hierarchy corresponds to a Logic

Fig. 9 Structure of the

acidizing expert system

Fig. 10 Command block for

the acidizing expert system


1 3


10/16

Block consisting of rule sets specialized in modeling the

logic and deriving the required decisions. Moreover, each

stage corresponds to a decision tree representing the

knowledge elicited from the expert. Decision trees are

constructed in the previous section and illustrated inFigs.1,2, 3, 4,5, 6.

An acidizing consultation session starts by processing

the first three stages sequentially, followed by asking about

the type(s) of damage. Stages 1 and 2 are designed to treat

damage type 1. Stage 3 scrutinizes conditions that wave

HCl injections for preventing sludging, rigid emulsions,

and iron precipitates. The reasoning process is then direc-

ted to infer the rules associated to Stage 4 and/or Stage 5,

based on the selected damage type(s). Damage types 3, 4,

5, 6 and 7 are covered by the HCl pre-flush of Stage 4

(Fig.4). The reasoning process then proceeds to Stages 5

for deriving the recommendations for treatment of fines

migration (damage type 2, Fig. 5). Finally, the reasoning

process proceeds to Stage 6 which is concerned with thefluid selection for the post-flush (Fig. 6).

The reasoning protocol outlined above is defined in

Exsys Corvid using a Command Block, which is shown

in the Exsys Corvid Window capture shown in Fig. 10. The

statements listed in the command block are normally

executed sequentially. After displaying the title page

(TITLE statement), the system is directed to derive the

value of the Confidence variable [Stage_Two]. Conse-

quently, backward chaining will be invoked, which would

Fig. 11 Logic module

representing Stage 1

Fig. 12 IFTHEN

representation of a rule in Exsys

Corvid


1 3


11/16

process the logic blocks for both Stage 1 and Stage 2.

The third statement/command is RESULTS, which displaysthe results or conclusions reached so far. This is followed

by a command to derive the Confidence variable

[Stage_Three].

The command block shown in Fig.10 results in dis-

playing intermediate conclusions after completing the

execution of each stage. Alternatively, if only final con-

clusions are required, then the command block would

simply include the following statements:

TITLE

DERIVE [Stage_Seven]

RESULTS

This would result in nesting the backward chainingreasoning back to the logic block for Stage 1, followed by

processing the logic blocks related to the stages down the

hierarchy (Fig. 9).

Rules are expressed in Exsys Corvid using Logic

Modules. They include a set of IFTHEN rules describing

a reasoning logic. An example logic module describing the

logic in Stage 1 is shown in Fig. 11. Moreover, the IF

THEN representation of the first rule of this logic module is

shown in Fig. 12.

Decisions derived by Stage 1 include:

a. Inject a mixture of diesel and toluene at 75:25 ratios.Soak overnight and flow back.

b. Inject an organic solvent xylene or toluene/crystal

modifiers.

c. Inject a mutual solvent.

d. No action needed.

The rule displayed in Fig. 12 uses two Static List

variables to check if there are whole mud losses and

any organic deposits. If the values of both variables are

Yes, then the rule concludes decisions (a) and (c).

Only one decision is derived from Stage 2 (see Fig.2). For

the acetic acid pre-flush stage (Stage 3), reasoning is mainlybased on the iron, clay and zeolite contents in the formation.

As shown in Fig. 3, two conclusions are possible for this

stage: No action needed if the formation doesnot have iron,

clay or zeolite, and Inject acetic acid if they exist. More-

over, the system suggests the volume of acetic acid, which is

determined based on the calcite (CaCO3) content, expressed

as a percentage out of the total rock bulk volume.

The reasoning logic for Stage 4 checks sludge and/or

emulsion potential logic shown in Fig.13. If the state-

ments in either one of the logical TRUE blocks are true,

then the sludge and/or emulsion potentials are inferred

as high. Another two logical tests needed for Stage 4reasoning are OR Test S4-1 and OR Test S4-2,

which are shown in Fig. 7 a and b, respectively. The

outcome of this stage is nine decisions, seven of which

are recommending the composition of the main acid to

be injected for the pre-flush stage. Asphaltene sludging

is likely to take place when a highly non-paraffinic

crude, with API gravity C27 and stock tank asphaltene

content is less or equal to 3 % by weight, is in contact

with HCl, or HCl/HF blends. Rigid emulsions, on the

other hand, would take place for the same conditions

when the crude is highly non-paraffinic with API gravity

B22 and stock tank asphaltene content is C4 % byweight (Houchin et al. 1990).

Acid formulation for Stage 5 is designed to treat spe-

cifically fines migration damage. The decision tree used in

developing the logic module for this stage is shown in

Fig.5. In addition to the two OR tests used in Stage 4

(Fig.7a, b), Stage 5 starts by checking one more OR test,

which is OR Test S5-1 shown in Fig. 7c. The outcome

of this stage is a recommendation on the type of main acid

to be used (see Fig. 5).

High sludge/

High Emulsion

potential?

AND

API 22STO

Asphaltenecontent 4%

Crude highly

non-paraffinic

AND

API 27STO

Asphaltenecontent 3%

Crude highly

non-paraffinic

OR

Fig. 13 Testing for sludge and/

or emulsion potential, used in

Stage 4


1 3


12/16

The last logic module to process is Stage 6. As shown in

Fig.6, the reasoning process derives the recommendation

to use one of the four options for acid over-flush.

The acidizing expert system has been developed as a

web-based application. A snapshot of the main page of the

system is shown in Fig. 14. The same website hosts another

expert system for accessing formation damage, which is the

subject of another future publication. Sample results pagelisting the recommendations of an acidizing session is

shown in Fig. 15.

Acidizing system validation

Prior to starting a session in the acidizing expert system,

the following data should be prepared by the user:

1. Volume fractions of iron-rich minerals such as pyrite,

siderite, hematite, magnetite, and antecerite.

2. Volume fractions of chlorite, mixed layer clays and

illite, and Na-feldspar and K-feldspar.

3. Volume fractions of calcite and zeolites (analcime,

natrolite).

Fig. 14 Home page of the

online version of the acidizing

expert system

Fig. 15 Recommendations ofthe acidizing expert system for

the Niger Delta field case


1 3


13/16

4. Whether the clays, iron-rich minerals, calcite and

feldspars exist as authigenic, detrital or crystal

growth.

5. API gravity of crude, whether it is highly paraffinic

or non-paraffinic, and the stock tank weight percent

of asphaltenes.

6. The reservoir temperature and thickness.

7. Whether there were any whole mud losses during

drilling of the well.

8. Whether the studied well is an injection or a

production well.

9. Whether there is any bacteria growth on the wellbore

face.

10. Whether there were any polymer flooding performed

prior to the acidizing job.

11. Whether there are any natural fractures, and whether

there is any filling of these fractures by calcite

material.

12. The type of damage that is required to remove.

The acidizing expert system has been validated with a

number of field cases from oil fields around the world.

Three actual field cases will be discussed and reported in

this study. They include the Niger Delta region, Algyo Oil

field in Hungary, and the Dulang oil field in Malaysia.

Case no. 1: Niger Delta region

This case study is related to a low-pressure sandstone oil

producer well in the Niger Delta region of southern

Nigeria. Rock properties were gathered for a number of

layers of this reservoir (Obadare et al. 2006). A represen-tative mineralogical distribution used by the expert system

is displayed in Table 1. Permeability ranges from 100 to

5,000 mD. Clay constituents, composition and distribution

were mapped for the concerned layers with a reasonable

statistical accuracy. The crude has a 0.663 downhole spe-

cific gravity, and the reservoir temperature is 188 F. The

pay thickness is approximately 21.7 ft. The main concern

with this well is the high potential of gelatinous precipitates

that may form in presence of zeolites, feldspar, clay, and

fines migration material. In addition to the data given so

far, following are further information that answers the

queries of the system:

1. Existence of mud losses to the formation because the

well was drilled overbalanced with a water-based mud,

and the reservoir unit has a fairly high permeability

value.

2. A finite amount of polymer residue may have been left

in the formation, as a consequence of the lost

circulation material during drilling.

3. Crude is paraffinic.

4. Iron-rich minerals exist as authigenic.

5. Feldspar material exists as detrital.

6. Intermediate matrix treatment is needed because of the

high rock permeability.

For the given data and information, the acidizing expert

system recommended the following acid treatment (see

Fig.15):

Stage One: Formation oil displacement stage: inject a

mixture of diesel and toluene at 75:25 ratio. Soak overnight

and flow back. Inject a mutual solvent.

Stage Two: Formation water displacement stage: inject

water with ammonium chloride at concentrations between

3 and 8 %, depending on the formation water salinity.

Stage Three: Acetic acid pre-flush: no action is needed

for this stage.

Stage Four:HCl pre-flush: inject HCl 3 % ? Fluoboric

acid ? Erythorbic acid ? EDTA.

Stage Five: Main acid stage: inject phosphonic acid.

Stage Six: Over-flush stage: inject 8 % NH4Cl.

As reported by Obadare et al. (2006), the actual treat-

ment used for the Niger Delta well consisted of a solventspearhead ? 10 % HCl pre-flush ? HF phosphonic acid

system ? 5 % HCl ? 3 % ammonium chloride containing

a clay stabilizer and a mutual solvent. This acid blend is in

perfect agreement with the blend recommended by the

acidizing expert system. The slight discrepancy is that the

expert system followed a conservative approach in adding

fluoboric acid, erythorbic acid and EDTA in the pre-flush

recommendation. In fact, fluoboric acid assures the disin-

tegration of any clay cementing material, erythorbic acid

Table 1 Mineralogical input data for the actual field cases used in

validating the acidizing expert system

Location Niger Delta Algyo-Ex1 Dulang

Depth (ft) 6,230 7,982 15,000

Quartz 73.2 45.0 51.9

K-Feldspar 13.6 16 5.2

Plagioclase (CalciumSodiumFeldspar)

4.1 0.0 2.4

Illite/smectite 0.7 0.0 10.9

Mica 0.0 2.0 0.0

Kaolinite 6.3 4.0 0.0

Chlorite 0.0 18 4.3

Dolomite 0.0 15 0.0

Calcite 0.0 7 15.0

Siderite 1.4 0.0 9.3

Pyrite 0.7 0.0 0.0

Hematite 0.0 0.0 0.0

Zeolite 0.7 0.0 1.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0


1 3


14/16


15/16

6. Near-Wellbore treatment is needed because of the

insignificant mud losses.

The acidizing expert system recommended the follow-

ing treatment procedure:

Stage One:Formation oil displacement stage: No action

is needed.

Stage Two: Formation water displacement stage: injectwater with ammonium chloride at concentrations between

3 and 8 %, depending on the formation water salinity.

Stage Three: Acetic acid pre-flush: Inject 310 % acetic

acid, volume 100 gal/ft.

Stage Four: HCl pre-flush: inject HCl 3 %.

Stage Five: Main acid stage: inject acid chelant-based

fluid.

Stage Six: Over-flush stage: inject 8 % NH4Cl.

The actual treatment fluid, which was reported by Ali

et al. (2005), consisted of a 10 % acetic acid pre-flush, an

organic clay acid and an organic mud acid as the main acid.

The well showed an insignificant production improvementof approximately 100 bbl/day production. Even though

organic mud acid has the ability to dissolve fines at this high

reservoir temperature, the occurrence of secondary and

tertiary reactions in presence of moderate amounts of chlo-

rite and feldspar makes the use of mud acid a gamble.

Organic clay acid would be useful for removing problems of

fines migration at high reservoir temperature, provided that

the calcite content is low. However, at this combination of

high temperature, high calcite content, presence of moderate

amount of feldspar and chlorite in addition to fines migration

problem, a better main acid solution becomes the chelant-

based acid recommended by the acidizing expert system.

Conclusions

This manuscript documents the development of an expert

system for automating the design of sandstone acidizing.

The system has been implemented, tested and validated

with actual field data.

The acidizing system has been developed using revised

acidizing guidelines that are formation damage specific, and

are also specific to rock mineralogical composition and

distribution. Traditional guidelines have been modified withrespect to certain mineral sensitivities. Specifically, these

modifications included more explicit consideration for the

presence of acid-sensitive minerals such as zeolites, chlo-

ride, and feldspars, and their distribution in the rock matrix

and in the pore space. These guidelines have been also

augmented with respect to certain acid blends such as

phosphonic acids and acid chelant systems which are more

tolerant to temperature, calcium and zeolite presence, and to

clay sensitivity.

The treatment design approach, implemented in the aci-

dizing expert system, is developed following an acidizing

structure that includes guidelines prepared in the form of

decision trees for six stages, namely: (i) the formation oil

displacement stage, (ii) the formation water displacement

stage, (iii) the acetic acid stage, (iv) the HCl pre-flush stage,

(v) the main acid stage, and (vi) the over-flush stage.

Integration of rules honoring the compatibility betweenthe acid injected and the rock mineralogy, and fluids

present in the rock, yields an optimal acid job design with

recommended main acid volumes, pre- and post-flush flu-

ids. The acidizing system is only applicable for a reservoir

permeability not \10 mD for oil-bearing layers, and not

\1 mD for gas-bearing layers. This permeability cut-off,

at reasonable layer thickness, should provide oil and gas

production at profitable rates after damage removal. For

permeability values less than these cut-off values,

hydraulic fracturing becomes a viable option.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Kuwait Oil CompanyManagement for the permission to publish this work. The authors are

grateful to Bader Al-Matar, Ali Afzal, Modhi Al-Ajmi and Huda Al-

Enizi from Kuwait Oil Company for their continued support and

advice on the project.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the

Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, dis-

tribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original

author(s) and the source are credited.

References

Adamo JM (1980) Fuzzy decision trees. Fuzzy Sets Syst 4:207219

Ali A, Hashim AH, Hashim F, Said R, Nair DS, Chan KS, Samuel M

(2005) Successful stimulation of sandstones in the Dulang field,

Malaysia using surfactant-based diverter: a novel solution for

mature fields. Paper No. SPE 96309. In: SPE Annual Technical

Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 912

Barker KM, Breitigam JV, Brotherton RL, Goff LL, Hake KJ,

Schofield RD (2007) Crude oils of Kentucky and Tennessee:

characteristics, problems and solutions. Paper No. SPE 111142.

In: SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Lexington, Kentucky,

October 1719

Bartko KM, Montgomery CT, Boney CL, Ward VL (1996) Devel-

opment of a stimulation treatment integrated model. Paper No.

SPE 35991. In: SPE Petroleum Computer Conference, Dallas,

Texas, June 25Blackburn CR, Abel JC, Day R (1990) An expert system to design

and evaluate matrix acidizing. Paper No. SPE 20337. In: Fifth

SPE Petroleum Computer Conference, Denver, CO, June 2528

Boyer RC, Wu C-H (1983) The role of reservoir lithology in design of

an acidizing program: Kuparuk River Formation, North Slope,

Alaska. Paper No. SPE 11722. In: SPE California Regional

Meeting, Ventura, California, March 2325

Chiu TJ, Caudell EA, Wu FL (1992) Development of an expert

system to assist with complex fluid design. Paper No. SPE

15602. In: SPE Petroleum Computer Conference, Houston, TX,

July 1922


1 3


16/16

Coulter GR, Jennings AR (1997). A Contemporary approach to

matrix acidizing. Paper No. SPE 56279. In: SPE Annual

Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,

October 58

Domelon MSV, Ford WGF, Chiu TJ (1992) An expert system for

matrix acidizing treatment design. Paper No. SPE 24779. In: 67 th

SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington,

D.C., October 47

Exsys Inc. (2010) Exsys Corvid Knowledge Automation Expert

System Software Developers Guide

Hashem MK, Nasr-El-Din HA, Hopkins JA (1999) An experience in

acidizing sandstone reservoirs: a scientific approach. Paper No.

SPE 56528. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-

tion, Houston, Texas, October 36

Houchin LR, Dunlap DD, Arnold BD, Domke KM (1990) The

occurrence and control of acid-induced asphaltene sludge. Paper

No. SPE 19410. In: SPE Formation Damage Control Sympo-

sium, Lafayette, Louisiana, February 2223

Nadeason G, Zain Z, Sayegh S, Girard M (2001) Assessment of

Dulang field immiscible water-alternating-gas (WAG) injection

through composite core displacement studies. Paper No. SPE

72140. In: SPE Asia Pacific Improved Oil Recovery Conference,

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 89

Nasr-El-Din HA, Al-Humaidan AY (2001) Iron sulfide scale:

formation, removal and prevention. Paper No. SPE 68315. In:

SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen, UK,

January 3031

Nasr-El-Din HA, Al-Mutairi SH, Al-Jari M, Metcalf AS, Walters W

(2002) Stimulation of a deep sour gas reservoir using gelled acid.

Paper No. SPE 75501. In: SPE Gas Technology Symposium,

Calgary, Alberta, 30 April2 May

Nasr-El-Din HA, Al-Anazi M, Al-Zahrani A, Samuel M, Kelkar SK

(2007) Investigation of a single-stage sandstone acidizing fluid

for high-temperature. Paper No. In: SPE 107636, European

Formation Damage Conference, Scheveningen, The Netherlands,

30 May01 June

Nitters G, Roodhart L, Jongma H, Yeager V, Buijse M, Fulton D,

Dahl J, Jantz E (2000) Structured approach to advanced

candidate selection and treatment design of stimulation treat-

ments. Paper No. SPE 63179. In: SPE Annual Technical

Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 14

Nwoke L, Uchendu C, Arukhe J, Essel P, Ndinemenu F, Vecchio A,

Fatusin S (2004) Phosphonic acid complex for stimulating HF-

sensitive reservoirsA revolutionary response. Paper No. SPE

89415. In: SPE/DOE Fourteenth Symposium on Improved Oil

Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 1721

Obadare A, Ighodaro O, Nwoke L, Osadjere P (2006) Deviation from

standard sandstone acidizing practices: chronicle of a forgiving

acid system. Paper No. SPE 102882. In: SPE Annual Technical

Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, September

2427

Rae P, Di Lullo G (2003) Matrix acid stimulationa review of the

state-of-the-art. Paper No. SPE 82260. In: SPE European

Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands,

May 1314

Rae P, Di Lullo G (2007) Single step matrix acidizing with HF

eliminating preflushes simplifies the process, improves the

results. Paper No. SPE 107296. In: European Formation Damage

Conference, Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 30 May01 June

Schechter R (1992) Oil well stimulation. Prentice Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey

Uchendu C, Nwoke L (2004) Solvent/acid blend provides economical

single step matrix acidizing success for fines and organic damage

removal in sandstone reservoirs: a Niger-Delta case study. Paper

No. SPE 90798. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and

Exhibition, Houston, Texas, September 2629

Uchendu C, Nwoke L, Akinlade O, Arukhe J (2006) A new approach

to matrix sandstone acidizing using a single-step HF system: a

Niger Delta case study. Paper No. SPE 103041. In: SPE Annual

Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,

September 2427

Urraca M, Ferenc U (2009) Novel chelating-based technology

application in complex and heterogeneous injector wells in the

Alygo field, Hungary. Paper No. SPE 120468. In: SPE European


May 2729

Urraca M, Udvari F (2009) Novel chelating-based technology

application in complex and heterogeneous injector wells in the

Algyo field, Hungary. Paper No. SPE 120468. In: SPE European


May 2729

Xiong H, Holditch SA (1994) An investigation into the application of

fuzzy logic to well stimulation treatment design. Paper No. SPE

27672. In: SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Confer-

ence, Midland, March 1618

Yuan Y, Shaw MJ (1995) Introduction to fuzzy decision trees. Fuzzy

Sets Syst 69:125139


1 3

automatic sandstone acidizing

Documents

Transcript of automatic sandstone acidizing